The art of staple removers is replete with various devices for removing conventional staples clenched on paper-type material. A relatively large number of staple removing devices are of the so-called "jaw-type". U.S. Pat. No. 4,054,263 issued to Michael Delia on Oct. 18, 1977, constitutes a typical example of a patent disclosing a so-called "jaw-type" staple remover.
These so-called "jaw-type" devices incorporate a pair of oppositely disposed cooperable jaws. Both jaws have upper and lower camming surfaces adapted to be inserted between the crown portion of a staple and the material to which the staple is attached. When the jaws are forced together, they simultaneously press upwardly on the crown portion of the staple and downwardly on the material. The staple is thus pulled out of the material.
The so-called "jaw-type" of staple removers suffers from a set of drawbacks. Firstly, they are relatively difficult and awkward to operate. They require a certain amount of manual dexterity and occasionally damage the fingernails of the user. Secondly, they often lead to tearing or damaging of both the staple and the sheet to which it is attached during the staple removing operation.
Thirdly, although some "jaw-type" staple removers has built-in components for retaining the removed staples, most of these staple retaining components have proven to be both costly and inefficient. Consequently, commercially successful "jaw-type" staple removers are sold without any staple retaining component and the removed staples must be disposed of one at a time by hand.
Although this problem might seem at first trivial it sometimes leads to more serious situations. Staples removed individually by hand frequently find their way on desk surfaces or floors as well as adjacent structures and equipment. The used staples which tend to become scattered clutter the premises.
The used staples occasionally fall by gravity onto the floor surface. When the floor surface is covered with a carpet, the sharp end portions thereof typically become embedded in the carpet by pressure contact with shoes as persons walk on the carpet. The staples after becoming wholly or partially embedded in the carpet are removed therefrom only with great difficulty. Not only do the used staples impart an unsightly appearance to the carpet when they are partially embedded therein, but they may also potentially cause serious injury to a child inadvertently trying to swallow them. Furthermore, if the used staples fall between the various operating parts of office machines such as photocopiers, they could potentially cause malfunctions and damages.
Another type of conventionally used staple remover is the so-called "blade-type" staple remover. An example of such staple remover is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,625,482 issued on Dec. 7, 1971, to Charles F. Viel III and in U.S. Pat. No. 4,513,951 issued on Apr. 30, 1985, to E. Mark Rodgers.
The so-called "blade-type" of staple removers has a forwardly projecting blade adapted to be inserted between the crown of the staple and the top surface from which the staple is to be removed. The blade typically has a forwardly tapering configuration. As the blade is slid between the crown section of the staple and the top surface of the material from which it is being removed, the thickness of the blade increases thus pushing the staple upwardly and unclenching it. Although relatively easier to operate than the so-called "claw-type" of staple removers, the so-called "blade-type" of staple removers also suffers from a set of drawbacks.
Indeed, even though the structures disclosed in both hereinbefore cited patents are provided with means for storing removed staples, in order for the removed staples to reach the removed staple storage area, the user must slide the device along a distance at least equivalent to the length of the blade. The relatively long sliding motion is non ergonomic. Furthermore, because of the resilient nature of the staple legs and their tendency to spring back towards their clenched configuration, the staples have a tendency to frictionally abut against the blade and thus to jam the device.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,631,816 issued to H. L. Neilsen on Jun. 14, 1948, and U.S. Pat. No. 2,741,457 issued to R. T. Furumizo on Apr. 10, 1956, disclose yet another type of staple removing device. These so-called "hybrid-type" of devices use both a blade and a jaw member. The blade extends forwardly from a handle. A jaw member slidably mounted on the handle is adapted to pull the staple onto the blade using finger pressure. These so-called "hybrid-type" of devices circumvent the problem of having to slide the staple remover over a relatively long distance. However the prior art "hybrid-type" of devices has proven to be relatively inefficient. Furthermore, the prior art "hybrid-type" of devices is not provided with storage compartments for storing used staples.